Appeal No. 2004-1108
Application 09/756,833
claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogami in
view of Rota (answer, page 7);
claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogami in view of
Rota as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of McDermott (answer, page 8); and
claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogami in
view of Rota and McDermott as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kearl (answer,
page 8).
Appellant groups the appealed claims as the claims appear in the grounds of rejection,
stating “[e]ach group of claims can stand or fall independently of one another” (brief,1 pages
6-7). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 16 and 17 as
representative of the appealed claims in the respective grounds of rejection. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (2002).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellant , we
refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellant’s brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
In considering the ground of rejection of appealed claim 1 under § 102(e) as anticipated
by Rota, we must first interpret the language thereof by giving the claim terms their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the written description provided in appellant’s
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, without reading into
these claims any limitation or particular embodiment which is disclosed in the specification. See
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he PTO applies
to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the
written description contained in the applicant’s specification.”); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11,
15 (CCPA 1978).
1 We consider the brief filed June 9, 2003 (Paper No. 10).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007